Obama’s back-door gun control efforts


by Douglas J. Hagmann

8 July 2012: The United Nations, with the full support of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is presently hammering out the details of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The conference began on July 2, 2012 and will continue through July 27, 2012, when the U.S. is expected to be a signatory of the treaty. The conference is being conducted behind closed doors until the terms of the treaty are released on July 27.  The threat that this treaty poses to national sovereignty and private gun ownership in the U.S. is neither an urban legend nor myth, despite what self-proclaimed fact-checking websites such as the progressively biased fact-check.org assert. It is an establishment of a multi-national framework that presents a direct assault on our Constitution.

Even some conservatives and those on the right of the archaic political spectrum are naively downplaying the potential threat posed by this treaty, frequently citing the necessity of ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to take effect. Considering the less than stellar job of our current elected leaders, their lack of accountability to the people, and their apparent lack of concern of all things constitutional, is this really an assertion on which you wish to base your argument?

Ratification, however, is secondary to becoming a signatory to the treaty. Becoming a signatory carries its own obligations, which requires the U.S. to participate in the treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  That is, we are legally obligated to do nothing to counter or otherwise interfere with this treaty while ratification is being considered, regardless how unlikely the prospect of ratification might be.

Therefore, by simply being a signatory, the Obama/Hillary anti-gun, anti-second amendment position threatens our constitutional right to possess firearms for hunting or self-defense without even appearing to be antagonistic to the U.S. Constitution.

The birth of globalist arms control

The concept of international arms control was first introduced in 2003 by a small group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Óscar Arias Sánchez, a politician from Costa Rica and a board member of the United Nation’s International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims.  The treaty was first considered by the United Nations in December 2006, at which time the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89, “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”  A total of 153 member nations voted for the treaty, although the United States rejected the treaty outright.

The refusal by the U.S. to become involved in international arms control came to an abrupt halt under the Obama administration. On October 14, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released a statement by Barack Hussein Obama that the United States was overturning the policy of former President George W. Bush, who believed such matters were best handled within national borders.

The change of policy quickly breathed new life into international encroachment on U.S. sovereignty.

Inside the Arms Trade Treaty

The stated objective of the Arms Trade Treaty is to regulate the international trade of “conventional weapons” by non-governments entities.  The purpose, of course, is to reduce weapons related violence by controlling the small arms trade.

This concept itself is flawed, as the majority of cross-border conventional arms trade takes place by and between governments, not individuals. Nonetheless, the treaty targets trade among individuals or non-government dealers and not governments. Furthermore, the treaty would hardly be honored or enforced by dictatorships or regimes where such regulations would best be served.

Proponents of the treaty are also targeting the sale of ammunition, noting that guns are useless without ammunition.

(un)Intended consequences

Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S. by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed. While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of the advocates of the right to bear arms.

If, however, the U.S. Senate would ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the treaty would have the same power as a constitutional amendment. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution regards treaties as the law of the land – period. That would open the U.S. to a global enforcement of international gun registration and even gun bans, and force the U.S. to adopt policies of international oversight.

Much like the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by a gun permitted to “walk” across the border due to the Obama/Clinton/Holder Fast & Furious operation, simply becoming a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty have consequences as previously noted. We would be hamstrung and not permitted to do anything to subvert the treaty while it remains under consideration for ratification.

Either way, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and their globalist puppet-masters have placed the United States gun owners and the sovereignty of our nation in a precarious position. Their efforts have received scant attention by the media, while being deliberately mischaracterized by the gun-grabbing globalists.